Lawyers for the trucking company involved in the deadly Amtrak train crash near Reno last year claim Union Pacific Railroad intentionally tampered with or destroyed evidence that could have shown the crossing gate malfunctioned and did not warn the driver of the oncoming train.

Steve Jaffe, lawyer for John Davis Trucking, filed a motion Tuesday asking a federal judge to dismiss lawsuits filed by Amtrak and Union Pacific because instead of “preserving evidence,” they allegedly removed the crossing gate that was in the crash, making it difficult for the trucking company to defend itself against claims the driver was at fault.

Union Pacific had claimed that it left the crash gate in place so that it could be inspected by lawyers involved in several lawsuits. But Jaffe said photographic evidence shows that in the weeks following the crash, Union Pacific first cut the tip off the gate and threw away and then replaced the entire arm, leaving the trucking company without key evidence, Jaffe said in the motion.

“Whatever response we have will be found in court filings and whatever is said in open court,” said Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm. “It is the legal process that will provide the response to these questions.”

Valli was driving north on U.S. 95, about 70 miles east of Reno, when he slammed into the westbound California Zephyr carrying 218 people. Valli and five on board died and dozens were injured. To date, 15 lawsuits are pending, including three in U.S. District Court in Reno between the rail companies and John Davis Trucking.

The two rail companies claim Valli failed to “heed the warnings, crossing protection controls and the locomotive horn” and smashed into the train. The lawsuits also say John Davis Trucking negligently owned, operated and maintained its tractor trailer.

But Jaffe disputes that claim, saying if the warning gates were working, Valli’s 25-ton tractor trailer would have “left significant damage, scrapes or other signs of impact on the gate arm.” Skid marks on the road show his vehicle remained mostly in the northbound lane, which would have taken him into the gates, Jaffe said.

(Page 2 of 3)

But a series of photos show the crossing-gate arm was cut and then replaced even though officials of the rail companies say they never removed it, Jaffe said.

A photo taken by the Nevada Highway Patrol on the morning of the June 2011 Amtrak crash shows the tip of the crossing gate frayed, Jaffe said. Union Pacific claimed that the tip was damaged when Valli’s truck crossed into the southbound lane and into the train so they repaired the tip and left the rest of the crossing in place, he said.

But photos taken in 2010 show that the crossing gate tip was already frayed months before the deadly crash, Jaffe said.

The Reno Gazette-Journal took a photo of the crossing gate in September 2010 after a different truck traveling south tried to stop for a train and instead slammed into the guardrail. The tip in 2010 photo looks the same as the tip in the NHP photo, Jaffe said. He attached the photos to his motion as exhibits.

One month after the 2011 crash, Jaffe said he inspected the crossing gate and the tip was no longer frayed.

When he asked Vincent Castillo, a lawyer for the rail companies, what happened to the old tip, Castillo said he was told that “the damaged tip of the gate arm was cut away and the gate arm extension pulled out” to make up for the removed tip and allowing the arm to be the proper length, Jaffe said.

That left “the original gate arm in use at the crossing,” according to Castillo. But Jaffe said that didn’t happen. He also said that the tip of the crossing gate was important evidence and should have been left on the gate.

By July 2011, Jaffe said the entire crossing gate had been replaced and photos show that the two gates -- the one in the crash and the new one -- are not the same.

Gate-crossing arms are made up of two sections, Jaffe said. One section is attached to the pole on the side of the road and another section, which is telegraphed inside the first section and sticks out into the road, is bolted in place, he said.

Photos of the crossing gate that was in place at the time of the crash show a long first section with bolts near the end and a red stripe on the end, Jaffe said in the motion. But photos of the crossing gate on July 28, 2011 show a very short first section with the bolts closer to the side of the road, the motion said.

(Page 3 of 3)

That gate also had an extra-long white tip, the motion said.

“Contrary to its representations in discovery, Union Pacific replaced the entire gate arm extension after the accident but before defendant’s July 28, 2011 inspection of the site,” the motion said. “The replacement of the extension most likely occurred on or about June 27, 2011, just three days after the accident.”

When Jaffe went back to the crash site for another inspection on Nov. 3, 2011, “Union Pacific had replaced the entire gate arm,” he said.

As owner of the track structure and signal equipment, Union Pacific was obliged to preserve the evidence, Jaffe said. And Amtrak was obligated to make sure the evidence was preserved, he said.

“The loss of this evidence, which we believe would demonstrate that the gate was not timely activated, is prejudicial to the defense, perhaps fatally so,” Jaffe said.

Documents filed by lawyers for both Amtrak and Union Pacific “appear to be an attempt by one or both of the railroads to cover up the destruction or improper disposition of crucial evidence,” he said.